I will stick to Beethoven and Bruckner. :)

Oh boy...

HE's use of the mad man of cubism as an example of "brilliant art", may have been a mistake?


Picasso's self-painting shortly
before his death.

His Excellency said:
"What makes the moral goodness of the artist as a person is not the same as what makes the artistic goodness of the artefacts that he produces (Summa Theologiae, 1a 2ae, Q57, Art. 3). Thus Picasso was a personal scoundrel, but his art, purely as art, is brilliant, whereas countless Victorian painters may have been personally very moral, but their paintings are as dull as ditch-water."

Picasso Painted in a State of Trance

 Cunha Alvarenga

 Among the so-called “masters” of modern art, Picasso enjoys a place of first importance. Besides being the creator of Cubism, his tumultuous spirit led him to participate in the most diverse styles and unbalanced schools of art. In each of these phases, his admirers as well as critics found ways to praise him and celebrate him. This is the case, for instance, of known English art critic, Sir Herbert Read (1893-1968). The English critic affirmed that “from his youth Picasso showed the prodigious infallibility of a genius.”

 This same critic stated that in a certain phase of his artistic career, Picasso transferred the images of his subconscious to his canvas by painting in a state of trance. Read explained that this was not satire, since satire is an intellectual weapon and Picasso was not an intellectual artist, as he himself declared. Instead, he is an artist who, “by an intense concentration of his intuitive faculties, dove deep under the surface of his consciousness to explore the serenity of the collective subconscious.”

The Woman, from Picasso's cubist stage

What was Picasso looking for in that tenebrous plunge into the “collective subconscious”? Read answered: “In this terrain we find the particular symptoms of the psychic disorders of society. These are the pains and conflicts of an indescriptible chaos that finds its outlet in the physical horrors of war and persecution. From this chaos Picasso took his disturbing images - images that are archetypes, specters of the dark forest where we all wander, where we lose ourselves unless we are saved by our forces of self-integration.”

 All this seems quite confused, so let us put it in clearer words. Picasso is considered a genius, and as such infallible. He had the habit of painting in state of trance. In this condition he entered the deep layer of the collective subconscious. There he found the special symptoms of the psychic disorders of society. Those horrible images he painted in a state of trance are specters of the collective subconscious.

 Picasso reflected on canvas the psychic disorders of society in such way that what for us appears to be a grotesque entanglement of lines, can supposedly become clearer if we also enter a trance state. Then we will see that those lines actually express “the pains and conflicts of an indescriptible chaos that finds its outlet in the physical horror of war and persecution.”

 What did Picasso himself think about all this? The answer is given to us by Giovanni Papini, the same author of Gog and Magog, in an imaginary interview with the creator of Cubism in The Black Book [Il libro nero]. We will transcribe only its final part. Papini ironically attributes the following “confession” to Picasso, who supposedly paints in words his own portrait here:

Picasso, the charlatan

“Little by little the new generations - passionate about mechanics and sports, increasingly frank, cynical and brutal - will abandon the art in museums and libraries as incomprehensible and useless relics of the past.

 “What can an artist like me, who clearly sees this approaching time, do? It would be too hard to change professions and jeopardize putting food on the table. To him only two paths are open: to try to have fun and make money.

 “Since art is no longer what inspires the best of society, the artist can try whatever he wants in new formulas, caprices of fantasy and intellectual charlatanism.

 “People no longer look for consolation or exaltation in art. However, those with delicate sensibilities, the wealthy, the vagabonds and those who produce the quintessence of goods - fashions, perfumes, Jєωelry, luxury cars, watches, etc. - are still seeking the new, strange, original, extravagant and scandalous things. In Cubism I satisfied these persons and critics with all the mutating bizarre things that occurred to me, and insofar as they could not understand me, they admired me. As I diverted myself with these hoaxes, acrobatics of lines, puzzles, arabesques and rebus, I quickly became a celebrity. Celebrity for a painter means sales, profit, fortunes and wealth. Today, as you know, I am famous and wealthy.

 “But when I am alone facing myself, I do not have the courage to consider myself an artist in the grand old meaning of the word. The true painters were Giotto and Titian, Rembrandt and Goya. I am just the public’s entertainer, who understood his time and exploited as much as possible the imbecility, vanity and cupidity of his contemporaries. This is a bitter confession, more painful than it may appear, but it has the merit of being sincere.”

 This imaginary self-portrait seems to us quite faithful. But if it were truly a confession by Picasso, it would need to be more explicit to be really sincere. His pictures are not just acrobatics and extravagances to satisfy the depraved taste of the epoch. They have much of diabolical in them. Even had he not painted in a trance state and in communication with the Devil, he communicated to us a demonic agitation and ugliness.

 This would not exclude that he was also a charlatan, since the Devil is the father of the lie.

Picasso's famous Guernica [War] expresses his chaotic and revolutionary state of mind

Source

I once bought an inexpensive poster in a souvenir shop of a Picasso. It was of a painting he did of his little sister receiving her first Holy Communion in the family's parish church. It was truly reverent and beautiful. This was painted in his very early years. It was later on that I read that he admitted that his "new" art was junk and took no effort to paint. But this is what people wanted to buy and that they would pay lots of money for it---so why not make some money?" Or words to that effect. I have not seen any of his early paintings but this one I referred to above, but if they are like his sister's First Communion, perhaps that might be what HE+Williamson might be talking about. In any case, whenever the world hears of Picasso they imagine these grotesque works and the good bishop would have done well to distinguish that in EC.

Both Mozart and Picasso are posterboys of our elites when required to reveal their artistic preferences. To say otherwise in such polite company immediately labels one as being unwashed or a cultural reactionary to be arrested if not shot. Apart from some catchy tunes, Mozart is very sleep-inducing and is liked by the bores of the musical world because he is neatly contained within their excessively well-mannered view of themselves. And far from being inspired by the Christian deity, Mozart sought the select company of those worshiping a greater god.

Picasso and his ilk are elevated because only an influential few can get away with praising their works. To demur would place us outside the club. I hope we are not going to turn our backs on the giants of the Victorian age.

I will stick to Mozart.

His Requiem and church Masses are one of the few suitable things for orchestra that could be performed in the context of the Holy Sacrifice. The others are too flashy and elaborate, with the exception of maybe: s.

.
It's hard for me to imagine a more elaborate composition than Bach's Mass in B-minor. 
Not really "flashy" but definitely elaborate. 
And it's hardly suitable for use at Mass due to its immense duration. 
What would an orchestra be doing inside the Church during Mass anyway? Profane instruments?! 
Try rendering the B-minor Mass on a pipe organ and you have an enormous challenge on your hands.

Thus Picasso was a personal scoundrel, but his art, purely as art, is brilliant, whereas countless Victorian painters may have been personally very moral, but their paintings are as dull as ditch-water.

There is no accounting for tastes.  Picasso's later art is reminiscent of the chaos of hell, the mutilation of the beautiful creation that is Gods's and, a very Jєωιѕн ethos.